Blaming government for fiscal crisis is scapegoating

• Link
• Report this comment

This spending Bookman speaks of was coerced by the government, forcing lenders to provide capital to people that were unable to pay back that capital.

Period.

The third day in a row that Bookman has blamed the direct results of failed government policy on someone other than government, just sayin….

• Link
• Report this comment

Darned that CRA. Isn’t that so, Whine. By the way, the FDIC now has 702 banks on their list of their endangered species and the FDIC is broke too. It’s times like these that make mattress stuffing a popular pasttime.

• Link
• Report this comment

whiner – “This spending Bookman speaks of was coerced by the government, forcing lenders to provide capital to people that were unable to pay back that capital.”

wow. so the gummint made the banks coerce people into using their houses like ATMs? the gummint made banks and lending institutions offer credit cards with thousands of dollars to university students (and then keep hiking the upper limit?)? the gummint made banks force people to spend themselves into a negative savings rate???

lame. lame. lame.

• Link
• Report this comment

jt – “It is called a fiat currency”

you mean like this: http://www.fiat.com/cgi-bin/pbrand.dll/FIAT_COM/showroom/showroom.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@1586231915.1267016723@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccgadejjldhgkjcefecejgdfkhdfji.0&modelKey=150

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK, yeah I was thinking about thumbing my nose at her but I know I would probably pay a heavy price for it. Like most of you ladies here she can have a sharp tongue at times.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK -

I owned many “disposable” SEATS in Spain. It was a FIAT sold to Spain by the Italian goverment.
You could get them for 4 or 5 hundred dollars. We once took a Seat 850 Especial, made a ramp out of boards and blocks, and jumped it into the Bay of Cadiz. Over forty feet. I’ve got pictures.

I had no idea that I had to get all of those cars out of my name before I left country. I had 5 unaccounted for. Cost me major bucks.

• Link
• Report this comment

If anyone’s interested, here’s the actual piece containing the chart info:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/02/when-were-stocks-last-under-valued/

And me–it’s all a bit too brain-hurty too early in the am for me to comment on Jay’s thesis just yet so I’ll just have a gander at how our resident economist is tackling the usual distractions (hi, Youze-in-Yook!)

• Link
• Report this comment

The conservatives out there probably listened to one too many Ron Paul Youtube video and then went out and went into debt in order to turn around and invest their newfound wealth all in gold. Alas, gold is not all that it is hyped up to be though for other rarer earthly elements are in the forefront given our developing interests in batteries and the power of the kilowatt and other just thingys. Of course, there will always be a need for little layers of gold plate on those high fidelity connections but for the most part, gold is just the stuff that tales of doubloons are made of. Arghhhh!

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK -

Working for the Gubmint. Navy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dang jt,sounds like you know how to have a good time! I did something similar with an old push button Dodge Polaris.

• Link
• Report this comment

hey dB – haven’t seen you in AGES!

yeah, our shed-yules haven’t synched in quite awhile. I’ll be able to check in a bit more often in the am for the near term though.

• Link
• Report this comment

Good morn DB, where ya been?

• Link
• Report this comment

I guess this isn’t the govts fault as well, right?

“WHAT BUDGET TROUBLES? OBAMA PLANS $1B BRIT EMBASSY “

• Link
• Report this comment

Scooter-

I was also stupid enough to have an Z-28 IROC shipped over there. A Mercedes 350 SEL clocked me at just shy of 150mph. My American Z felt scary at that speed. We switched cars, and at 150mph the Mercedes hadn’t even started to float yet. Amazing. It could have gone much faster.

• Link
• Report this comment

AJC did a lot of finger pointing when G. BUSH was in office.

• Link
• Report this comment

We won’t learn from this and can count on having the next great recession down the road.

• Link
• Report this comment

jt – I don’t know if BBA America airs the program “Top Gear” – if they do, you should look it up … it sounds right up your alley (and I think you’ll love the host, Jeremy Clarkson)

• Link
• Report this comment

I love it. Now that the lefties have realized their guy Obama can’t do JACK SQUAT to fix things, and that scapegoating corporations and “greedy” Wall Street folks isn’t gaining them any traction, they have finally started to get a grip on reality: we, the people, are to blame.

I fully expected these lefty “talking points” to pop up as blind lefty government loyalists started to realize there is no savior in D.C. that can magically “create” wealth through government redistribution.

It’s the “ant and the grasshopper” story, and this country has had too many grasshoppers, and not enough ants. Yet all anyone in D.C. wants to do is kick the can down the road until my kids are forced to deal with it.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Eyes Have It

February 24th, 2010
8:22 am

I have a “Pacer” I can sell you.

• Link
• Report this comment

From Drudge-

“Hoyer: Comprehensive health bill may be no go”

He knows that he better listen to me.

• Link
• Report this comment

As we post, the Greeks are rioting in the streets because of the austerity measures being imposed by their government. Americans need to take a hard look at what could happen. Hollywood releases “disaster” films about comets, meteors, earthquakes, storms, global warming, etc. Maybe if they actually released a film that accurately portrays the consequences of fiscal stupidity then people might start looking inward.

BTW, I always thought that Greenspan tested the political winds using his stinky finger.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ummm.. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are as responsible for this as anyone else. They created the market, they started buying up securities they weren’t supposed. And when both Bush and McCain tried to stop the bleeding, the Democrats in congress gave them the finger.

Last I checked, Fannie and Freddie are government sponsored enterprises that had the full implicit backing of the federal government.

Government is not the scapegoat, it’s the cause. Along with Greenspan keeping rates too low too long. And may I remind you, for all it’s independence, the Fed is still the government.

• Link
• Report this comment

I know what you talking about jt. I have never driven an American car that wouldn’t float at 150 plus.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Eyes Have It

February 24th, 2010
8:36 am

No on the Pacer, huh? How ’bout a Gremlin?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dang Jay, friend-o, if this ain’t a thoughtful column, grounded in facts and actually trying to educate the masses.

I’m sure your bosses at the AJC will admonish you for such conduct – ha!

Back in the early 90’s I worked for a Ga Democrat in DC – day one on the job, he told me: “Everybody in the Capital knows how to balance the budget tomorrow – cut spending, including defense and social security, and raise some taxes, but nobody has the guts to do it.”

At least our State Gov’t has to do the same thing with it’s checkbook that I have to do with mine, balance it.

But, our Fed Gov’t just keeps spending and borrowing, setting a bad example for those lucky Obama voters who can do much the same as the rest of us pay for their food, their housing, their healthcare, and their mistakes.

• Link
• Report this comment

I agree that the Fed held rates below market, thus driving the fall in the dollar. In such an economy, where financial instruments provide no return, rational investors turn to commodities. Of the choices available in the early 2000s, real estate, and related instruments, always provided the safest and most consistent return on the investment (reason: they aren’t making any more land.) However, when everyone got into the same game at the same time, we had too much diminished-value paper chasing too few investment opportunities, thus building the bubble. I attribute Fed actions to 50% responsibility for building the bubble.

I dissent with that portion of our host’s essay that says the government otherwise has no culpability in the economic collapse. Continuing our focus on the housing bubble, the Congress determined to stimulate the housing market, by raising taxpayer obligations for instruments issued by FNMA and FHLMC and FHA. The insanity reached its climax with the 2007 Congressional action to increase the size of mortgages eligible for the government support, to $700,000 – the very definition of insanity. The primary reason i am no fan of Mr. Isakson is that he has never seen a taxpayer housing stimulus bill unworthy of his support; that mentality that compels taxpayers to commit to the care and feeding of investment bubbles is endemic among leftist democrats, and I am unable to distinguish Mr. Isakson from those. I assess 40% of the blame for the housing bubble to taxpayer-guaranteed instruments.

Those outside the industry cannot comprehend the role of CRA, the Carter-era “feel good” law that compels financial institutions to set aggregate lending procedures that consider the needs of “low- and moderate-income” borrowers. In fact, during the Clinton administration, the bank regulators turned CRA into weapon of brutal enforcement – think you can find the history if you google “Bank of America” and “branch application” and CRA. All bankers got the message. The regulators gave them a path out – by originating mortgages to low-income borrowers and selling them to FNMA and FHLMC, the banks fulfill their “statutory” obligations. I assess 10% of the bubble to the regulatory pressure from CRA. (Did you know that OCC, FED, and FDIC CRA examiners are culled from the regular financial analysts who review safety and soundness, to keep such concerns from corrupting their perspective?)

However the housing bubble was less than 50% causative of the financial distress. We will address that more significant causation of the economic collapse in our next posting.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay,
It sounds like you want people to take personal responsibility for their situation. That sounds sound un-liberal like. Are you feeling well?
And by the way, I agree with your point.

• Link
• Report this comment

Peadawg

I can assure you that I am in no way typical.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama needs to put people to work. If it takes debt to do it, so be it. Let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire and use that money for jobs. The republicans ran up this debt. Let them pay for it when they come back in power.

• Link
• Report this comment

X marks the spot indeed (in the chart above). Nice column Bookman.

• Link
• Report this comment

Boy Howdy, that Ragnar feller sure is smart. The rest of you’uns only think you know what happened.

• Link
• Report this comment

” Maybe if they actually released a film that accurately portrays the consequences of fiscal stupidity then people might start looking inward.”

The “me” generation doesn’t have an inward.

As for the gov’t not responsible – bs, it took the gov’t, Wall St and Main St to create the perfect storm – I hold them ALL accountable.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yes, I must agree with Bosch. This is a nice column, and I wish others would write similar pieces. It will be interesting to watch over the next few years as reality dawns on more and more people. That includes me, because although I have seen this coming for years, it is a lot easier to talk about a depression than to participate in one.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thanks for the charts. I hadn’t seen them. They reinforce my thoughts about promises of new or better services and higher wages made at every level of government during political speeches and elections without any commitment to new revenue sources. It just doesn’t work that way.

• Link
• Report this comment

Spend less then what you earn.

AMEN!

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s fascinating that we’ve reached a point in US history where the ‘left wingers’ are staunch defenders of the government, staunch advocates for State Department policy in general.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, my brother-in-law works for Fannie Mae here in Atlanta. Wish you could talk to him, boy-o; he’d really pin your ears back on this! You are just flat dead factually wrong. Government DID cause this. He was predicting how this housing bubble was going to bust way back in the ’90’s. AND, he said each time the Bush administration tried to reign in the loose lending policies, he’d have to sit in Fannie Mae meetings speculating how they’d react (Chris Dodd by the way, managed to shoot down any regulation in committee…notice your type always leaves that out). Guidelines such as the “zero down/no doc” policies from HUD were very instrumental on deepening the risk. I can go on and on showing how wrong you are, by citing government mandate after mandate on the real estate lending sector.
ON THE CONTRARY, I dare you to cite just one specific Bush economic policy you think caused the crisis. Because on ONE HAND, you remove the government from any blame, yet turn around and blame Bush (who was a government official). How can you have it both ways, Jay? Your column today is just further proof that you rant from ignorance.

• Link
• Report this comment

Amen, Jay. Any society with its citizens spending way more than they make is bound to fall. Same with its government. A permanent contraction, a return to living within one’s means has to return.

• Link
• Report this comment

I recall graduating from college in the late 90s and looking at becoming a real estate investor (who wasn’t around the time?). Anyway, when I sat down with different mortgage lenders, the deals that they were offering were too good to be true. But they tried to convince me that it wasn’t. Glad I listened to my internal bs meter.

A friend of mine who was a lender said that most in his profession only cared about making the deal happen, getting their commission, and passing the buck to some poor schmuck who would clean up the mess.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, my hairdresser told me that he went in and got a loan from this person at a bank and this person told him way back in 19 hundred and seventy that there was gonna be a housing bubble because bubbles were all the rage and he was right.

• Link
• Report this comment

The more consequential question – what caused the economic collapse? – requires a little knowledge of the incentives that make private enterprise work, that which the leftists deride as “greed.” Greed is a comparatively consistent commodity, rarely increasing or decreasing over the course of humanity. That system that harnesses greed most effectively is the most productive; any system that quashes greed diminishes its own future.

In January 2007, on taking the role of speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi declared the Bush tax cuts “dead,” an affirmation that a higher tax regimen was enroute. The democrats anointed a hard leftist as their presidential candidate, and coupled that with a hard leftist control of both houses of Congress, the future was clear: higher employee healthcare costs, higher energy costs from “cap and trade,” debilitating regulation of business practices. After the collapse of the housing bubble in September 2008, immediately before election, any employer with half a brain realized the inevitability of the leftist regime, and began to prepare for economic disaster, cutting personnel and expenditures to the bone.

And there we stay. For now, no employer has any incentive to make a change. And a one-time $3000 tax credit won’t change minds anywhere, except at Burger Doodle, where the employees are the only thing that costs less than the product. Reviving the economy will take a sea-change in the bureaucratic and political mindset. The tea partiers realize that. I doubt that our political class does.

• Link
• Report this comment

Both political parties are to blame. Why?

PROGRESSIVES!

Obama is a progressive. Bush was a progressive. Clinton was a progressive and so is McCain.

The goal of these people is to control every aspect of your life and create an all-powerful federal state.

Progressives don’t believe in the concept of individual freedoms and the rights of the states to make their own laws. They only want one National government. They believe you work for them and their agenda. They believe they have some mandate to steal from one earner and redistribute that cash to somebody else because of their race or economic status.

Progressives believe they know what’s best for everybody and anybody who disagrees with them is called either stupid, a racist or a radical right-winger.

Prohibition in the 1920’s = Progressive Policy
Income Tax (It’s actually titled The Progressive Income Tax) = Progressive Policy
Federal Reserve System = Progressive Policy
Welfare Entitlements= Progressive Policy
Social Security = Progressive Policy
AMTRAK = Progressive Policy
United Nations/League of Nations = Progressive Policy

None of the above systems is financially solvent. Get it?

They don’t care about paying for their promises. They’ll say anything to pull the wool over the public’s eyes and then blame the opposition when their plans don’t work.

Research – Cloward and Piven. The entire scheme is to destroy the financial system by overloading it until it collapses from the inside. After the walls come down they will preach about how guvmint needs to protect you from everybody including yourself.

Save me guvmint…. Save me……

The liberal agenda is garbage in it’s most disgusting stink.

Throw the Progressives into the trash compactor and hit the green button. Problem solved.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s a graph illustrating the magnitude of the deficit the past 40 years:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4jIlyJ10uJU/S3_qofA5-WI/AAAAAAAAGEo/gco-QtkluzU/s1600-h/Deficits.JPG

• Link
• Report this comment

Darned government is the root of all our evils. Do your part come election day and vote for nobody. That’ll reduce the size of government and save us a bunch in taxes too.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yeah, Jay…you certainly have NEVER pointed your finger at Bush in the past about the recession. Sell that crap somewhere else. What a JOKE.

• Link
• Report this comment

Olbermann’s Cold Sore

February 24th, 2010
9:18 am

To quote a friend…”I don’t care who you are, thass funny”.

• Link
• Report this comment

Too many people are blaming the CRA for the economic trouble that this nation is in; it was not the cause. The CRA stated that banks had to lend in the communities that they served…..that’s all!! The culprits were the lenders who loosened credit restrictions to maximize profit at other’s expense!!

Tax cuts and taking the wars off-the-books didn’t help either!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Blue

February 24th, 2010
9:25 am

Perhaps Jay’s logic is that if he now gives W a pass, he may be able to convince himself that BHO also deserves a pass.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ragnar….you really had me going. You posted some well-thought-out comments that were on target. Then you had to go and blow it by blaming the CRA.

I actually get tired of re-posting this, so you get the short version.

The purpose of the CRA was not to have banks go out and and make poor loans. It was to prevent banks from putting a branch in a poor area and use the deposits for loans in more prosperous areas while denying credit to the actual depositors.

Banks did not have to expand into poor areas. In fact, CRA was a dis-incentive to do that. Banks chose to expand into poor areas. Banks chose to make loans to people with poor credit. Just like credit card companies (banks) choose to issue cards to people who are already drowning in debt.

So you ruin an otherwise good post with a right-wing taking point. BTW, I spent more than 25 years in the banking industry while all this was going on.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nice tie-in between the personal and the national. The country’s already experienced the personal, we see the national on the horizon and people are anxious and fed up with representatives of both parties who refuse to take action – just like that Ga Congressman cited earlier.

Isn’t there a movement underway that reflects this?

I would’ve expected harsh condemnation of your crosshairs shifting from Pres Bush to the mirror. Maybe underlying truth hitting home?

Look at what happened – the unusual, or what never would have been believed my many, becomes not at all unusual. We hear what we want to hear to justify our desires – we get fed a line of ‘good reasons’ – then move ahead with our hands over our eyes. “Can’t afford that car you want? Lease it? Sure, you’re just paying depreciation forever, but here’s why it’s a good idea to rent a depreciating asset instead of owning it…” “Can’t afford that house? But you need a bigger one and besides… you’ll make money! So do an interest-only loan…. or a super-low intro rate… and if you have to sell later, well hey, you’ll make money ’cause you’re not just buying it to live in it, you’re going to make money!!!” “No one cooks their own food. Get that credit card and eat out! You’re busy… you don’t have time… and besides, if you can’t eat it all no matter how hard you try, you can have leftovers and get two meals for the price of one!”

And on and on with clothes and trips and everything…. and forget about saving for retirement, ’cause you don’t make enough to even try, right?

N-GA

The Greeks are rioting? Anything to do with the Germans and other EU countries refusing to bail them out? We don’t have anyone to turn to to bail us out, any other countries to pay off our debts, do we?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Too many people are blaming the CRA for the economic trouble that this nation is in; it was not the cause”

They know that, but they can’t help themselves. Repeating the lies is all they have.

• Link
• Report this comment

Government got fat, dumb, and happy along with everyone else. Difference is I am cutting my household spending and the government continues operating under the budgets of crazy times. Nobody ever thought that great companies like GM and Citigroup would face bankruptcy or worse. It will happen again with our Federal and State governments because they only know how to expand. Eventually, they will become such a burden our effective tax rate will be 65% like it is in Europe. Difference is the dollar will be near worthless by the time it happens because our government leveraged itself just as many Americans did to start the crisis.

• Link
• Report this comment

In case some of you have never seen this, t’s really just this simple:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage

Alexander Tyler

• Link
• Report this comment

From the AP-

“Bonuses up 17% on Wall Street”

Why not? They can’t lose with the FED as their slush fund.

No, government is not responsible for THIS crisis. And you will probably believe that they are not responsible for the NEXT either.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno: from 1970-1981, this nation was paying the costs of the Vietnam Conflict…..but during the Carter Administration, government spending was basically FLAT, for Carter’s deficits were only $46B each year during his term; the BALLOONING of national expenditures happened during Reagan’s FIRST term, when he QUADRUPLED the deficit to $166B in his FIRST YEAR. Clinton’s eight years produced the first SURPLUS since the 60s….but Bush43 went into deficit spending his FIRST YEAR!! During that same time frame, it’s the Democrats who were the more fiscally responsible….spending on what the nation needed….not looting the Treasury for the profit of friends (see KBR, Halliburton…..)!! It’s not JUST Democrats that the nation should be mad at!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Headlines:

#1) “A Third of All U.S. Casualties in Eight-Year Afghan War Have Occurred Since Obama Ordered Escalation… ” Ooops …….. Obama’s War !

#2) “Teacher Tackles Gunman Suspected in Colo. Shooting…” How could this happen? Guns are not allowed on school property in Colorado !

• Link
• Report this comment

Ragnar: here’s the question — WHY shouldn’t an institution that uses funds deposited in a certain community also SERVE that community by lending to it?? Banks made profits off of the assets of those in poor communities…..but won’t lend to those same account holders?? The CRA ensured that the LENDING occurred. Wihtout it, continual redlining in the real estate market would have occurred…..and the “Ownership Society” wouldn’t have been a possibility!! Expanding a market is what all corporations desire…to maximize profit!!

Laissez-faire economics does NOT always work…..for someone will eventually get screwed by discriminatory practices. Equal opportunity does not make equal results….that’s why insurance covers the risk!!

• Link
• Report this comment

“For those who might be interested in that bigger picture, I’d ask you and others to have a look at the source of those first two charts, here:”

And what bigger picture might that be, sfd? The “point” of the article you linked was to claim that we have nothing to worry about, that we have had deficits in the past. However, when you look at the data from the past two years, I’d say we have a lot to worry about. Please enlighten us, assuming you have actually read the link.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ragnar…I guess that the CRA you remember is different than the one I was required to follow. My bank was never required to open a branch where we didn’t want to have a presence. And I was involved with every single bank audit performed by the Comptroller of the Currency on my bank. We never had a problem conforming to the CRA.

• Link
• Report this comment

“WHY shouldn’t an institution that uses funds deposited in a certain community also SERVE that community by lending to it??”

Because it might not make economic sense to do so. And making decisions that don’t make economic sense is why we are having this discussion.

• Link
• Report this comment

jay, who is this “WE” of which you speak. Can’t count me and mine among the stupid. It’s cash and carry with us.

The Democrats, for the most part, are the ones who send out the message “You are entitled” and stupid people buy it with no cash-in-hand? Gambling addicts…

my husband never plays poker with money he can’t afford to lose. More often than not, he wins, but he takes into account, those sitting at the table (young family men) who are in over their heads. He walks away with words of advice….

“Are you willing to gamble away your kids’ future? If so, I’m won’t be the one taking it from them, you will.”

Never gamble with the government. They run the house.

• Link
• Report this comment

N-GA-Said————-

“And I was involved with every single bank audit performed by the Comptroller of the Currency on my bank. We never had a problem conforming to the CRA.”

Wow. Maybe THAT is what happened. What time frame was this?

• Link
• Report this comment

The “point” of the article you linked was to claim that we have nothing to worry about

If that’s what you think its point was, I think maybe you should re-read it.

It attempted to spell out where the revenues come from, and addressed mandatory spending as an important issue. In fact, here was Conclusion #3:

2.) While mandatory spending has remained constant as a percent of GDP, it’s increase to about 60% of the current federal budget is perhaps the biggest problem the US faces going forward. And as the percentage increase in medicare payments indicates, medical payments are a primary reason for the problems the country faces at the federal fiscal level.

Reading this, it would seem the prudent thing to do would be to address medicare payments, presumably through some kind of comprehensive healthcare insurance reform.

• Link
• Report this comment

Myopic government policies forced onto everyone caused most of the problems.

There’s too many to list.

• Link
• Report this comment

“THE WORST: 10% SAY CONGRESS DOING GOOD JOB ”

But it’s not the govts fault, right?

• Link
• Report this comment

the BALLOONING of national expenditures happened during Reagan’s FIRST term, when he QUADRUPLED the deficit to $166B in his FIRST YEAR.

So, Reagan and Congress reduced the tax rates. This coupled with a dramatic increase in military spending resulted in greatly increased deficits. So much so that during the Reagan presidency more debt was incurred than ALL OF THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

The upward trajectory of deficits continued through Reagan’s 2 terms and GHWB’s one term. Only during Clinton’s presidency did we see a change in the amount of deficit spending. Not so much because of Clinton but because of an increase in taxes AND a reduction in spending. Remember “Contract with America?” So, Clinton cannot take all the credit.

Of course this was immediately reversed when GWB came into office. One his first acts was to pass a tax cut for the richest Americans. And the upward deficit spiral continued.

Now that the wheels have fallen off the economy, tax revenues are down dramatically. But spending has not fallen. The result? Monumental deficits. Unfortunately, we–as a country–must make some painful choices because we cannot continue on the path we are on.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear N-GA and HDB, I do not doubt the sincerity of your belief about the purposes of CRA and its immediate predecessor, the entirely worthless HMDA. But both statutes are founded on an unreal economic assumption, that credit needs are consistent among individuals and communities.

Quite the contrary, young people have the greatest need for external sources of credit. Have to buy a house, have to buy a car, have to get a line of credit to finance receivables, have to pay for the kids’s education. Older people, who have paid for their needs over a lifetime of work, have practically no need for credit – they pay cash for the new car, or to replace the toilet in the bathroom, or to buy a new mattress.

Housing patterns develop similarly – neighborhoods normally reflect an age consistency. Some neighborhoods are populated mostly by old folks, who never borrow anything, and some neighborhoods are populated by younger people with substantial credit needs.

Bankers are fundamentally lazy; while they would prefer to lend money only to older people who have no credit needs – they would thus not have to worry about repayment – that market does not exist. Thus the bank loans follow the population. However, a bank with has a paucity of loans in a geographic area peopled with older non-borrowers will be punished by regulators, for “failure to serve all of its community.” So the bank is compelled to seek out comparatively poorer risks in those areas with lesser credit needs just to keep the bureaucrats at bay. One could reasonably call the laws a “stupid and meaningless interference with the market.”

• Link
• Report this comment

It was all unnecessary. The tax changes set the tone and the “ownership society” sealed the deal. Throw in greed, fraud and incompetence and you have the perfect storm. And President Bush almost got out of office before the first rains started, but he wasn’t as lucky as Reagan.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Soothsayer @ 9:59, the whole truth requires one to note those truths that would affect one’s calculus. I think we have not dispute that national defense is an appropriate, even a Constitutional, obligation of the central government. While you aptly note that the Reagan administration rebuilt a depleted military – seems we always have a depleted military after a democrat administration – you fail to discuss the unnecessary spending habits of the Congresses of that period. How did Congress do on unnecessary spending.

As to your silly note on tax cuts, we would surely agree that Federal revenues rose after the Laffer cut; Incontrovertible. There was no other meaningful change in that morbund economy to cause a rise in revenues, so I am willing to grant the obvious, that tax cuts led to larger revenues due to the improved business conditions. Rising tide lifting all boats, you know the aphorism. Perhaps we would agree that there is presently nothing coming out of this administration that would raise a tide.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Perhaps we would agree that there is presently nothing coming out of this administration that would raise a tide.”

Only if we can agree the tide was receding or well out to sea for years before this administration took office.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Toll @ 10:17, agreed, as I documented an hour ago. Speaker Pelosi blew the fizz out of the champaign almost two years before Chauncey was elected. While government acts cannot create productive jobs, government acts certainly can destroy them. And she did.

• Link
• Report this comment

that tax cuts led to larger revenues due to the improved business conditions. Rising tide lifting all boats.

A misleading statement if ever I saw one. Go look at the year-by-year revenue picture, Ragnar. For every dollar in tax cuts, the federal government realized a 9-cent increase in tax revenue. I have an offer for you, if you think this is good: give me 100 bucks of your money each year and I’ll give you 9 bucks each year. Deal?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Curious, I think you yet do not appreciate the role of psychology in economic planning by the private economy. Do you seriously think a businessman will plan expansion when threatened with tax increases?

• Link
• Report this comment

Ragnar,

Different bankers have have different tolerances for risk. There are those who only make good (low interest) loans at the possible expense of higher profits. Then there are those who make high margin loans in an attempt to make more profit while moderating low margin loans. Meanwhile many banks were taking “idle” funds and investing them in anything risky they could get away with. They were also knowingly breaking the rules that restricted lending to specific borrowers (who “hid” their identities by having more than 1 company, a development corp and a construction company). This practice has been commonplace in community banks (the category with the highest insolvency rate).

Many bankers also showed they lacked common sense by lending excessively to a single market (retail and commercial property/development). As a direct consequence, the banks floundered when the industry bubble burst. They should have “spread the risk” by loaning to many markets. Kinda like investment advisors tell their clients to diversify their portfolios.

All this was exacerbated by the standard banking industry practice of paying loan officers bonuses based on “production”. This was the same stupid practice used for mortgage brokers. The line people were incented to bring in loans and the more senior people were incented to approve them. Iy doesn’t take a Harvard economist to figure out how well that worked.

BTW, many banks in the mid-West pay their loan officers salaries and review their performance annually by examining loan production AND loan performance! A novel idea that also may suggest why banks there aren’t imploding by the dozens.

• Link
• Report this comment

cant belive this CRA drumbeat is still being played, i’m sure hannity probably mentions it 5 times a day. the ‘banks’ involved in the mortgage meltdown were not the community banks covered by CRA…Investment Banks are a completely different story….like everything else its an easy target to lay the blame. greedy mortgage brokers, mortgage-backed securities run amok, ratings agencies, amateur real esate investors stupid borrowers, there’s where the blame lies….CRA is way, way down the list if its even on the list…but again its a good sound bite for people to repeat (over and over and over and over……)

• Link
• Report this comment

http://imgsrv.gocomics.com/dim/?fh=70377a866f4d496a832e764f757e9efd&w=900.0

• Link
• Report this comment

“the republican party is looking for their supporters to stimulate the economy”

God help us all if they get to “stimulate” our economy any more. W’s 8 years were enough to bring us to the edge of the precipice.

Just as the voters in Paulding county have recently proven to us, “conservatives” don’t learn from past mistakes any better than liburals. Not that we needed that lesson reinforced (again)…

• Link
• Report this comment

Sam,
The better question is why do you always take more than one southern baptist fishing with you?

• Link
• Report this comment

i dont know Troll, why do you always take more than one southern baptist fishin with you?

• Link
• Report this comment

Regarding federal revenues increasing after tax cuts, this is a myth for the most part. The portion of federal revenues that increase are the result of reductions in Capital Gains taxes. I think most would agree that the wealthy benefit most when Capital Gains tax rates are reduced. When that reduction occurs, people rush to realize (sell) their gains (at a lower tax rate), thus paying more to the government. For example, if Donald Trump owned a NYC building that he had purchased several years earlier for $200 million (when LT Capital Gains rate was 20%) and sold it for $350 million (when the LT Capital Gains rate was 15%), look how much money he saved. But federal revenues went up.

• Link
• Report this comment

…look how much money he saved. But federal revenues went up.

So we should forego something that brings more money into the treasury just so that evil, rich Donald Trump won’t make more money?

Geez, I guess we’ve reached Silly Hour on the day shift, so I’m going to head to the forest. See y’all this evening.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sam

February 24th, 2010
10:41 am
i went to a southern baptist wedding a few years ago….no booze, no music, no dinner. it sucked! are all baptist weddings this lame?

I don’t know whether all are, but I went to one last summer. No expense had been spared in renting a luxurious facility, providing great food for a dinner (salmon and filet mignon), and offering a band for the music. But nary a drop of alcohol anywhere. Sounds like you got hosed. I at least had good music (but no dancing permissible) and a fine dinner.

• Link
• Report this comment

RW….the problem (since you need it spelled out to you) is that cutting income taxes doesn’t increase revenues. It actually decreases revenues.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nice try.

Here are the facts: Bush suggesrted reigning in the derivatives. He actually supported gov’t regulation. It was the Dem Congress that blew it.

Look, there’s a very easy fix to the current problem. But, the Dems don’t want to do anything that suggests giving a break to corps or the wealthy. They have substituted the old tired race warfare with class warfare. Where it used to a a white v. black thing, to the Dems today it’s all about the haves v the have-nots. That’s been their game for decades and frankly I’m sick of it. Why don’t you write a column about that? You blast the GOP and Bush at every chance. Why not show a little credibility by blasting the Dems?

The easy fix? Replace the income tax with a sales tax. That would fix the current financial and employment problem almost immediately. If Obama really was all about change (and if he really is as smart as some believe) he should move in this direction (over the screams of the liberals). Often, the most complex issues have the simplest solutions. This is one of them.

• Link
• Report this comment

The easy fix? Replace the income tax with a sales tax.

Another FairTaxer?

Oy to the vey.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sales tax. Right. Like I, as a small business owner, want to be forced to become a tax collector for the fed. Running a small business is hard enough without that with just trying to get those wonderful and pristine corporations to pay thier bills to the small businesses that support them. Now I need to become a tax collector and IRS agent…

• Link
• Report this comment

Contrary to Rag’s rants, the CRA did not ‘compel’ a single bank to make a single sub-prime loan. CRA from inception in 1977 until today never mandated a single sub prime loan. 50% of sub primes were made by independent mortgage companies, 25% by partially regulated subsidiaries and affiliates, and only about 1 in 4 by fully regulated banks.
And non-CRA loans wound up in default twice as often. However, the CRA did ‘encourage’ sub-prime lending. If the bank wanted to open more branches or engage in certain merger and acquisitions they had to make CRA zip code loans (but not necessarily sub-prime).
The real fault of government is the failure to regulate, allowing commerical and investment banks to load their portfolios with mortgage-backed securities, allowing AIG to load up on CDS’s, allowing CDS’s in the first place when no one really understood the risk. Greenspan at the Fed, congressional banking committee members, and Dugan, the Comptroller of the Currency should have been the gatekeepers, and they failed horribly.

• Link
• Report this comment

U B Suckers. The swiss sure know how to welcome a fella. I would send a postcard but… .

• Link
• Report this comment

John,

Too bad things aren’t that simple. Kinda like solving world hunger or achieving peace in our time.

There are those who make minimum wage and spend 100% of their income on necessities (the price of those necessities would rise to cover this replacement tax). Too bad for them.

Meanwhile the very, very rich would spend perhaps 10% of their incomes (taxable with the new tax) and invest the rest. They would pay no taxes on 90% of their initial income, nor any tax on the investment profits. Also, they would pay no US taxes on goods they purchase in foreign countries (real estate, cars, luxury items, etc.) as long as they left them there. So their incentive is to have a second (or third) residence in another country and buy goods there. That way its not spent in the USA and subject to the new tax. Maybe they could buy a cabin in Canada, then a car too. License it in Canada and drive it across the border and…..you get the picture.

Not so “simple”, huh?

• Link
• Report this comment

You Report, We Ignore

• Link
• Report this comment

Au Contraire Mon Ami,
I zeroed in on the irony quite nicely.

Such as: It’s ironic that folks such as yourself constantly decry the current state of affairs, when you helped to create said state as much as anyone out there… doesn’t get much more ironic than that.

• Link
• Report this comment

“when you helped to create said state as much as anyone out there…”

Care to explain your rationale on that one?

These assumptions should be good, so fire away.

• Link
• Report this comment

crenshaw, baptists are okay its their weddings that suck..

• Link
• Report this comment

50% of sub primes were made by independent mortgage companies, 25% by partially regulated subsidiaries and affiliates, and only about 1 in 4 by fully regulated banks.

Not really

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.

• Link
• Report this comment

“baptists are okay its their weddings that suck”

man. no kidding. I mean, mints and peanuts – you call THAT a reception???

• Link
• Report this comment

hey kam – turns out Cole’s £400K fine isn’t just for having an affair, it’s for breaking the rules and bringing girls back to his room during away games …

like I said – there isn’t enough penicillin in the world that would make me want to touch him … ew.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK

**man. no kidding. I mean, mints and peanuts – you call THAT a reception???**

Yes, but it’s really fast. A catholic wedding will take over an hour. You can marry the entire congregation of a Baptist church in an hour.

I say: Say the vows, eat the mints and peanuts and head out. Time’s a wastin’.

• Link
• Report this comment

Headline: “Obama & Dems in 2005: 51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founder’s Intent…”

Hummmmm ………….. until “you” get in office.

• Link
• Report this comment

hey kam – turns out Cole’s £400K fine isn’t just for having an affair, it’s for breaking the rules and bringing girls back to his room during away games

Yeah, I figured it was a morals clause kinda thing, but if I put on my Blue Lions fan cap, I can look past that kinda thing while the team is at the top of the table.

Meanwhile it looks as if Cheryl has kicked him to the curb.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wall Street Shifting Political Contributions To Republicans

After a brief dalliance with Democrats, they’re returning to Old Faithful.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022305537.html

• Link
• Report this comment

Drain,

and therein lies the difference, you want to get it over with and get home. i want a party is drunk girls dressed to the nines that lasts all night long…to each their own…i tell you what, next baptist wedding i’m invited to, you go in my place and vice versa… then we’ll compare notes..

• Link
• Report this comment

Headline: “Poll: Younger voters support for Democrats drops.”

Ah, the winds are shifting ……………..

• Link
• Report this comment

Redneck Convert (R–and proud of it) :

Well, you know what they say about the “Holiness”. They’ll get to heaven too if they don’t run by it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Daniel Stout, the guy who had an affair with his mother-in-law and won Glenn Richardson’s old seat in Paulding County, went to a Christian school. I don’t know which denomination.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK:

Question ………. are you still a U.S. citizen or have you gone native. Just curious.

• Link
• Report this comment

And one last time for the envious liberals on board today: 80% of millionaires earned the money themselves. Your assumptions that it all came from Daddy are wrong.

• Link
• Report this comment

poooooooooor whiner … such bad reading skills, he can’t get past the headline …

“Three out of four voters (75%) report being at least somewhat angry at the policies of the federal government. Part of the frustration is likely due to the belief of 60% of voters that neither Republican political leaders nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today.

Still, voters believe Democrats are more likely than Republicans to have a plan for the future. ”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno – no!! no mad!!! why for???

• Link
• Report this comment

Sam – what’s the difference between an Irish wedding and an Irish wake???

one less guest.

thankyew … thankyewverymuch …

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK:

Having a “plan” means very little if it’s not a good one. Lee had a “plan” at Gettysburg and Custer had a “plan” at the Little Big Horn.

• Link
• Report this comment

he reports, we ignore

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout – 11:44 – ??? I think I missed something …

• Link
• Report this comment

Point blank, USinUK–Do you believe that economies are “zero-sum”, that one person’s success comes at the expense of someone else failing? That seems to be the reasoning behind all the “wealth envy” comments I read from yesterday’s blog. You in particular have stated that you live in a very expensive house and have a solid retirement portfolio. If so, why are you concerned about those who earn more than you do?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jays puffery makes perfect sence..
Blame the Republicans for 4.9 Trillion in debt over 8 years
Blame everyone but Obama for the 2.9 Trillion in debt since last Jan.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Jenifer:

Judas was one of the twelve. What’s your point?”

Well, I certainly wouldn’t rank him with Judas. Going a little far there, aren’t ya? Geez…

• Link
• Report this comment

Best pay off those credit cards, kiddies.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Well, unlike his predecessor, at least he’s keeping it in the family.”

Good one!

• Link
• Report this comment

““May you enjoy 5 minutes in heaven before the Devil finds out you are dead”.”

that’s a little different from the way I learned it: “May you BE 5 minutes in heaven, before the Devil finds out you are dead”

• Link
• Report this comment

“Bruno – of course I don’t – nor did I say anything of the kind yesterday.”

Here’s from your 9:53:

“so their income is simply “given” to them?”

since much is from investment income, one could make that argument …

• Link
• Report this comment

“My point was going to a …”, etc

Ummm, yes Scout…WE already know that. You’re “preaching to the choir here.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Troll @ 10:31, had you read my earlier note you would understand that the destruction wreaked by Ms. Pelosi had nothing to do with budgets and was not subject to veto.

Dear N-GA @ 10:30, much of your post has nothing to do with CRA, but you cite one incontrovertible truth: Different bankers have have different tolerances for risk. Only our leftist friends refuse to accept that truth, attempting to force all bankers into the same profiles, without regard to the differences in the local economies.

Dear Birch @ 11:09, the government did not “have” to tell any banker anything after it went after Bank of America on CRA grounds during the Clinton administration. Even if bankers are not smart enough to always exercise good credit judgment, they understand good regulatory relations. And they were grateful for the FNMA/FHLMC escape valve, allowing them to make bad loans and then sell them off.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA:

Disagree ………… not everyone is in “the choir”. That’s the problem.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK:

I hear you but Tory “sounds” so bad. We killed so many of them in our Revolution and the rest fled to Canada.

• Link
• Report this comment

“not everyone is in “the choir”. ”

I did say “here.” I have yet to see anyone defend that scumbag, so it’s a pretty safe bet that everyone HERE knows a “Christian in name only” when they see one.

• Link
• Report this comment

P.S.–I’m picking on you in particular this Am re: the wealth envy comments from yesterday, USinUK, since you are the only liberal on board from whom I can expect a reasonable response. So actually, my insult is a compliment.

• Link
• Report this comment

Outhouse GoKart:

I’m sorry but “He” disagrees with you …………….

John 17:12

“While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout, If you haven’t figured it out yet, Jenifer is one of the “tolerant liberals” who HATES Christians. She can post whatever she wants in response to this, but one only needs to go back and read her posts over the past weeks here to see the evidence.

And there isn’t much point debating with her either. She’s about the dimmest bulb this blog has ever seen.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA :

I hear you. I also think there will be some surprises both ways.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout – “We killed so many of them in our Revolution and the rest fled to Canada.”

gah – most of the English blood that was spilled on American soil wouldn’t have qualified to vote, anyway – if you rented land, you couldn’t vote until the 1830s (and, even then, only some of them) – all non-land-owners (men) could vote in the 1860s.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Shack up and make babies, then when it falls apart (as it does 75% of the time)”

That seems to be generational – wonder why?

• Link
• Report this comment

Ragnar,

Your 11:54 said “… much of your post has nothing to do with CRA.”. True, just like CRA had nothing to do with the economic crisis and the housing market meltdown.

Thank you for helping me make my point.

• Link
• Report this comment

Amen, after all we were entilted to a $300,000 home, $50,000 fully loaded 4-wheel dually pickup, $30,000 200 HP bass boat, 60″ flat screen TV and of course the government had to keep the party going for us. Picture what we would have been screaming it they did not. Government do something!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout – 11:49 – ah – I see what you’re saying. but, in this case, I think they are referring to plans vs. “NO, DAMMIT!!!”

OGK – “Best pay off those credit cards, kiddies.” good advice, no matter what’s going on in the economy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sam (your 12:05) – Amen!

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey Jay, how come over the past few years when your minions have been bashing Bush endlessly for this financial crisis you haven’t swooped in with that seagull style of yours to correct them like you do everybody else on here who disagrees with you?

Thats called “intellectual honesty” Jay. If you and your cohorts there at the AJC displayed that once in a while, you might not be going out of business at double the national average.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno –

you left out the key passage from Jay’s post – the nugget, if you will, that defines the part you did quote:

“I love these folks who try to pretend that the working-class and middle-class people left behind in the past generation were just partying 24/7 and were just basically lazy good for nothings.”

Jay was calling out the people who were saying that, if you weren’t rich, it’s because you’re lazy and expect the gummint to give you everything. THAT’S what I was applauding raucously … and still do.

• Link
• Report this comment

Everyone sees through their own filters, I suppose. I don’t have “wealth envy,” as material excess makes me uncomfortable. (Camel, meet eye of needle.) What I resent is that while I’m working all my life and giving it all to somebody else every single month, (head of household, my choice) big corp. entities (more rights than people) and the people who hide in their folds, own my “representatives” — who make it clear they don’t represent ME — and enjoy ginormous tax breaks that are not available to me, the working sucker. Y’all can keep your beamers, manolo blahniks and biannual facelifts. Truly. All I ask from the moneyed is that you SHUT the FRICK UP already. Wah, wah, some poor woman wants food and medicine for her kid and it’s not MY kid! Wah wah wah! Save your whining for hell. I’m over it.

• Link
• Report this comment

“but the ones on the right are not the ones that believe everything should be equal ”

Well, I’m not on the right…and I don’t think EVERYthing should be equal, but I do think we should strive to make as much FAIR as we can.

• Link
• Report this comment

md, thats a talking point. helping out folks who need it most is not making everything “equal” ….

• Link
• Report this comment

Bud – “But, how could weather be a factor?”

as much as you reeeeeeeelly, reeeeeeeelly want to blame the Dems for this, the fact is NOBODY wants to go out in the cold and snow to shop.

for anything.

• Link
• Report this comment

check the history of home sales (noerw or not) in tyhe months of Jan/Feb….please move on, nothing to see here

• Link
• Report this comment

Jenifer

Re: Wall Street contributions shifting from Dems to Reps: when they don’t get value for money, they shift. If bribes don’t work with one, they try another.

Full federal funding of elections…..

Scooter:

[My point was going to a “Christian” school, or being a member of a “Christian” church, or being a member of the original twlelve disciples (Judas) does NOT make one a Christian.]]

Excellent point and one the “Pres Obama is really a Muslim – he went to a Muslim school, remember?” crowd should absorb.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Our gov’t will never be able to achieve “fair” – it’s impossible”

and I didn’t say it could. I said as fair AS POSSIBLE.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Jay was calling out the people who were saying that, if you weren’t rich, it’s because you’re lazy and expect the gummint to give you everything. THAT’S what I was applauding raucously … and still do.”

And for every negative comment from the “righties” regarding the poor, there is at least one negative comment from the “lefties” regarding the rich. Yet ultimately, I think there’s a little more truth on the side of the “righties”. I know very few poor people who worked hard and made good decisions with their money. Anecdotal evidence for sure, but I run into a lot of poor people due to the part of town I work in.

• Link
• Report this comment

this reminds me of so many here: http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tr/2010/tr100224.gif

• Link
• Report this comment

“Please provide links to whoever is asking for this. I’ve never seen anyone HERE call for any such thing, but since you said it…they MUST exist somewhere, right?”

May want to check the thresholds of the upcoming hc bill.

• Link
• Report this comment

“May want to check”

In other words, you don’t have any. The problem is you left something out of your original list:

Assistance with EDUCATION = independence

• Link
• Report this comment

Talk about your dishonest “brokers”…

this one takes the cake–YOURS!

ObamaCare at Ramming Speed
The White House shows it has no interest in compromise.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704454304575081391789004352.html

The larger political message of this new proposal is that Mr. Obama and Democrats have no intention of compromising on an incremental reform, or of listening to Republican, or any other, ideas on health care. They want what they want, and they’re going to play by Chicago Rules and try to dragoon it into law on a narrow partisan vote via Congressional rules that have never been used for such a major change in national policy. If you want to know why Democratic Washington is “ungovernable,” this is it.

Government price fixing? That is like…..so-o-ooo Chavez, it’s scary. May as well dissolve the Senate if they go with inappropriate use of reconciliation. The senate is there to act as a balance. If they’re rendered obsolete, congress will be able to legislative, unobstructed, from their isolated bubble.

Obama either understands The Constitution and has no use for it, or he’s ignorant of its intended purpose. Either way, it does not bode well for America.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno,

Here is what set Jay off yesterday, a simple question. No commentary, no conclusions, just a question:

“Should a student that studies 24/7, sacrifices and does no partying and makes straight A’s have to share those A’s with a student that partys 24/7, does very little studying and makes D’s and F’s????”

What was interesting were the responses such as usuk, matilda, and others. None of them answered the question, but all had comments related to perceived conclusions – including Jay.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The problem is you left something out of your original list:

Assistance with EDUCATION = independence”

May want to read a little deeper. My post clearly states a need for a safety net (assistance) and education. Words have meanings.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Jenifer:

My point was going to a “Christian” school, or being a member of a “Christian” church, or being a member of the original twlelve disciples (Judas) does NOT make one a Christian.

It’s what’s in the heart that counts …………….”

Oh! You had a point! Okay.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Or do you mean “fair” in the sense of equal opportunity?”

This is part of it, but it also encompasses eliminating to the extent possible, the inequalities that are based on prejudice. Something along the lines of (as an example) the CRA…which forbids regulated banks from “red lining” potential borrowers based solely on where they live.

And it also encompasses giving extra help to those in need of it. We are not all equal in ability, nor in opportunity…but some are better than others at leveraging the abilities and opportunities they have. Just because some are not so good at that is not a valid reason for throwing them in a ditch.

And yes, my sense of fairness tells me that there will be people that we have to “support in idleness” but I find that preferable to watching them die on the streets for lack of some simple support.

• Link
• Report this comment

Why is my comment awaiting moderation? I don’t get why this happens sometimes for no apparent reason.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you don’t worry about money, you probably cry about taxes. If you worry about money, taxes are usally not thought about. Generally.

Those who say money isn’t everything, have enough. When you don’t have enough it is EVERYTHING.

Happiness is being happy with what you have, not always wanting more.

You can’t get ahead until you get even.

• Link
• Report this comment

““Jay and others here like to claim that everyone’s contribution to society is equal, implying that we all should earn the same income.”

“What absolute, fabricated baloney.”

Jay, I just found your criticism of my comment today on yesterday’s blog. Here’s your original comment which supports my contention:

“With his or her labor and willingness to risk life and limb, the officer makes it safe for other people to go about their business of working and spending and living.

Go to a country without an effective police force and see how many jobs there are.

And that’s true across the board. Everybody produces jobs. When I buy a car, I produce jobs. When you buy a newspaper ad, you produce jobs. The notion that only rich investors produce jobs is economic nonsense. They play A role, other people play other roles, and TOGETHER the economy grows.”

• Link
• Report this comment

@@ – sorry, but I don’t see how your story in any way relates to the quote from me that you included.

• Link
• Report this comment

In case any of you forgot, it is the conservatives who want a lower gasoline tax, it is the liberals who think it should be even higher based on previous blog comments.

I realize you have conditioned that statement a bit, but for the record, I think most liberals recognize that poor folks would be hit pretty hard, at least short-term, if gas taxes were to increase significantly.

(were these taxes used to fund better mass transit, and encourage better, more fuel efficient vehicles that’d come into the used-car sales pipeline down the road, ultimately it might work out ok for the lower end, but let’s not kid ourselves.)

As for FICA, employees only pay half of their contribution to begin with. The employer is forced to pick up the other half.

That’s one way of looking at it. The other way is that FICA costs employees a lot more than they recognize, since they only see the 7.125 (?) percent that’s withheld, but not the matching amount that they don’t make because their employer has to pay it separately.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jenifer

February 24th, 2010
1:07 pm

But, but, but jenifer…that’s Old Testiment and from the Torah too, so it can’t be the Christian thing to do….

• Link
• Report this comment

oops, sorry, Bruno, I didn’t see your link to Jay’s column, which does provide a CBO report on tax liability by quintile.

here’s the report for those who missed it:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/tax_liability_shares.pdf

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone:

Thru his family’s selfishness, they’re destroying his ability to provide for them. He’s their provider, they the leeches. Have they no shame?

I would argue that they never will as long as people like you act as enablers.

And yes, my sense of fairness tells me that there will be people that we have to “support in idleness” but I find that preferable to watching them die on the streets for lack of some simple support.

People should be free to fail. It’s the only way they’ll learn. If they don’t, they die. Nobody’s fault but their own.

Harsh realities, but something people need to face “head-on”.

• Link
• Report this comment

**Thru his family’s selfishness**

He also has the power of choice and he choose to enable.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I realize you have conditioned that statement a bit, but for the record, I think most liberals recognize that poor folks would be hit pretty hard, at least short-term, if gas taxes were to increase significantly.”

Don’t have time to go back and look, sfd, but I think Jay wrote a column supporting a higher gas tax at some point in order to discourage consumption. I may be wrong about that. At any rate, you are the first “liberal” who sees the connection between the tax burden of the poor and our bloated gasoline taxes.

“That’s one way of looking at it. The other way is that FICA costs employees a lot more than they recognize, since they only see the 7.125 (?) percent that’s withheld, but not the matching amount that they don’t make because their employer has to pay it separately.”

I appreciate the civil exchange this morning, sfd, despite our gut-level differences of opinion. I think the conversations here are far more productive without all the name calling and demonizations that seem part and parcel of many of every post on this blog.

Speaking of taxes, I’m off to meet my CPA. I got a bad feeling it’s going to be ugly this year.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I would argue that they never will as long as people like you act as enablers”

But in the case you illustrated, it ISN’T “people like me” who are the enablers. It is HIM.

“People should be free to fail. It’s the only way they’ll learn. If they don’t, they die. Nobody’s fault but their own”

Should we take it, then, that you would be willing to stand in the street and watch them do it?

• Link
• Report this comment

RK…”There in lays the blame”

It would be helpful if you’d tie your comment back to what it refers to.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK, boy do you need a history lesson. Yes the government MADE banks lessen standards for mortgage loans. Jimmy Carter;
The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5] The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.). To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.).[6]

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone:

Should we take it, then, that you would be willing to stand in the street and watch them do it?

See the comment to Mick about my sister.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”

–Winston Churchill

• Link
• Report this comment

“See the comment to Mick about my sister.”

Did you watch her die? Did you do anything to get her help that she needed? Or were you callous enough to just let her get on with dieing?

And yes, I DO understand that some people can’t be, or won’t be, helped. But the assistance should be available, whether they choose to use it or not.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hello Kamchak, 1:42,

Please do not post facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

md

February 24th, 2010
12:37 pm
Bruno,

Here is what set Jay off yesterday, a simple question. No commentary, no conclusions, just a question:

“Should a student that studies 24/7, sacrifices and does no partying and makes straight A’s have to share those A’s with a student that partys 24/7, does very little studying and makes D’s and F’s????”

Your assumption is that people who followed all the perceived rules of life, actually benefited from the process. There are many people who fall into the working class that have college educations. Not all occupations “Pay-Well”. Having a college education doesn’t always put you into the affluent category. Then there are those that fall unto hard times and have to rely on government programs, such as unemployment, food stamps and even welfare. It only takes one minor setback to put you in the lesser category.
Then there are those who made D’s and F’s in school who are actually successful, my landscaper and beautician didn’t work hard in school. However, they both bring in more money than I do and I have a college education and a corporate job.
So, I don’t believe in your theory of “Making the Grade”, as a means to success. Sometimes you have to have a calling in life and my landscaper and beautician had a very promising calling.

I can also name a few more instances of successful people who didn’t necessarily make the GRADE.

• Link
• Report this comment

…and Doggone. At no time did I feel that YOU should have taken responsibility for her.

• Link
• Report this comment

Good afternoon Jenifer.

The CRA, Fannie and Freddie are the shiny baubles that so distract some people.

Private lending institutions not subject to the CRA made more than 84% of the sub-prime loans. Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48% of loans sold into the secondary market down to 24%.

But still it’s all the fault of the CRA, Fannie and Freddie.

• Link
• Report this comment

AND…

the government couldn’t have done anymore for her than did I or her last employer. The only interest they would have had in her was to use her as a statistic to garner votes.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Good afternoon Jenifer.

The CRA, Fannie and Freddie are the shiny baubles that so distract some people.

Private lending institutions not subject to the CRA made more than 84% of the sub-prime loans. Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48% of loans sold into the secondary market down to 24%.

But still it’s all the fault of the CRA, Fannie and Freddie.”

I know. What I don’t know is whether it’s ignorance or stubbornness with a lot of folks. Probably both.

• Link
• Report this comment

“So I guess we can expect…”

so now you’ve taken to arguing from the general to the specific.

• Link
• Report this comment

“And the more we make excuses for people”

But I have not done that. As I’ve said before, I think anyone who gets any form of public assistance should have to work for it, as long as they are physically capable of doing so. They should be in an education system, working as an apprentice, doing volunteer work, even picking up trash…SOMETHING…to earn their assistance.

“Looks like you do”

I’d like to see you back that up with ANYTHING I’ve ever said regarding providing drug addicts with drugs. Here’s a time save for you:

• Link
• Report this comment

sorry.

Here’s a time saver for you: YOU CAN’T DO IT. I would say provide them with help to cure their addiction, if necessary…but I see no need to continue to feed it.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I do not blame Pres. Bush ”

It takes a REALLY weird view to read this as “Bush bashing”

• Link
• Report this comment

the answer

February 24th, 2010
2:18 pm

Great idea! And good luck with making it happen.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Funny thing though, not a single soul has yet to answer the question”

that’s because it was posed as a false comparison to a totally unrelated economic question.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oops, the hypocritical libs are caught red handed. Are you really surprised?

No, I’m not. It’s just a vicious circle.IMO

• Link
• Report this comment

Stimulus Hypocrite Gov. Bob McDonnell Now Wants The Federal Government To Give Virginia More Money

Suck at the teat of the federal government, you hypocritical, greedy bast@rds.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/24/mcdonnell-stimulus/

• Link
• Report this comment

“that’s because it was posed as a false comparison to a totally unrelated economic question”

Great, more assumptions.

• Link
• Report this comment

wow, I actually agree with Jay here…scary. Now if you can only get dems and replublicans to agree on what “causes” the deficit and actually do something about it. Dems want to add programs and take your money to do so, republicans are kings of pork too and usually only get fiscally conservative when it suits their arguments against dems. Unfortunately most Americans are too busy racking up debt on plasma TV’s to even know that carrying that much debt can’t be sustained (and have growth).

The American culture isn’t one that acknowledges fiscal responsibility personally or for our government (on the whole- there are always exceptions).

• Link
• Report this comment

Great, more assumptions.

Nope. A statement of opinion.

• Link
• Report this comment

For once I will agree with JB. Yes, both parties put in a lot of bad policies that lead up to using your home as an ATM, and virtually free credit. But let’s go way back to LBJ, the great society, where no one is responsible for anything they do, and the Govt. will take care of you. If the Govt would stop supporting everyone that fails do to BAD decision making we will be a hell of a lot better off. When people start to take RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions we will be on the road to recovery. I will give you a personal example from a Delta flight I was on last night. A middle aged woman had a bag way too big for the overheads. She stood in the isle and said she wasn’t moving until someone else, NOT HER, picked up her bag and put it in the overhead, and clearly stated everyone else could just wait in the isle. She filled the bag so heavy she couldnt lift it and it was now someone elses problem. Sound familiar? Any bets on how many Govt handout programs she is on? If you can’t afford it don’t buy it!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry Kam, wrong again:

“that’s because it was posed”

Ony I would know why “it was posed”, Dog would have to say “I believe it was posed” for your claim to be valid.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ony[sic] I would know why “it was posed”

“Why” don’t enter into it. Doggone/GA identified it for “what” it was.

• Link
• Report this comment

If bankers & creditors wouldn’t sell to consumers unable to repay loans, we wouldn’t have had this fiscal mess. And if liberals in Congress had not insisted that everyone was entitled to home-ownership, we wouldn’t have had this fiscal mess.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jenifer @3:03,

I went on to explain my position at 3:01, something you didn’t do. You just pasted a link and when it was challenged came up with a childish retort. Another sign indeed.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jennifer, you must really get an education. I order to be FDIC insured you had to play by the CRA rules, guess what, to be a bank you need FDIC insurance. Here is another good one, why don’t we have health insurance competition across state lines? Could it be because the government said you can’t? It is amazing the way our government makes a problem then they want to fix it. It is like taking poison to cure a cold, it WILL get rid of the cold guaranteed.

• Link
• Report this comment

There is barely any penalty for failure anymore, and as long as the government continues to provide a safety net for irresponsible behavior, the government will continue to be the problem.

The government of Bush and his accomplices allowed the catastrophic thievery on Wall Street and on main Street and then bailed out their crooked, rich friends. The penalty for criminality was being bailed out by tax payer money. Citi and AIG were the recipients of huge amounts of money on weekends when nobody could do a damn thing about it. Doled out by Bush. Don’t try blaming the average American chump. This was a Republinazi debacle!

• Link
• Report this comment

Throw the Progressives into the trash compactor and hit the green button. Problem solved

Why don’t you try that bitch? You could be ground down to the nothingness you really are if you do!

• Link
• Report this comment

Geez, the 80’s called, they want their cliches back.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, I am astounded that YOU said that we were ALL at fault because quite frankly, WE ARE (metaphorically speaking, of course)! My wife and I have lived within our means, have not over-spent and have not bought anything we couldn’t afford and we have saved and invested 25% of our income for the last 27 years. We are not rich. We are not greedy. We are middle class and we are comfortable and we try to help those that need it because we can. The thing is, we know what is best for us because it is OUR money that we are spending. We know our bounds. You cannot absolve the government from any of the blame for “the mess” we find ourselves in. Yes, government provides us with some vital services we must have as a “civilized” society but it also one of the worst squanderers of large amounts of taxpayers funds because it, unlike most private business, is not built to be responsible with money. It has no motivation to do otherwise because spending other peoples money is easy and they are insulated from the pain that their mis-management results in. I think it boils down to this; government employees and our elected government officials know that it is not their money that they are spending therefore they really don’t care how prudently it is spent and quite frankly they have become numb to unbelievably large numbers. Billions and Trillions mean nothing to these people. The American government has become arrogant and detached from its constituents. The American public has become complacent, lazy and they want everything but want to sacrifice nothing. This is a formula for sociological disaster, which I think is where we are headed. Is this synical? Perhaps. But is it not also true? Absolutely.

Damnit, I think I just depressed myself!

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay you sound like a foolish person. You act as if all of this falls on the shoulder of President Obama…when in fact Clinton and Bush should be held accountable for what we are experiencing. How can any economy survive when more money is going out of the country than coming in? It cannot be done. And besides the voters are really the ones to blame, because we should have impeached both Presidents the moment we realized that we had been bamboozled.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m curious. If women influence 80% of all spending just as they brag about, then aren’t they really the ones who are to blame for 80% of the debt and financial mess we’re in?

• Link
• Report this comment